Oculus Rift: Is the world finally ready for virtual reality games?

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

The latest Kickstarter-funded project to cause a stir online is the Oculus Rift. Oculus is a virtual reality headset that’s designed to offer unparalleled visual quality, low-latency performance, and drive new levels of game/video immersion. The product page is a veritable Who’s Who of the gaming world, with John Carmack calling it “the best VR demo probably the world has ever seen,” and Epic Games Design Director Cliff Bleszinski declaring that his company wants the Unreal engine to be compatible with the Rift.

The technical specifications are equally impressive. The Rift provides a 110-degree field of vision and is capable of tracking head movement far more smoothly than previous efforts in this field. The developer kit (yours for just $300) includes a copy of Doom III: BFG, which has been ported to run on the new headset, the Rift SDK, and complete access to the company’s nascent Development Center.

There are two types of challenges a device like the Oculus Rift must overcome in order to be successful. The first is technological and relates to the quality of the screens, game support, ease of programming, etc. This is where the Rift currently shines. It’s been 20 years since Nintendo’s Virtual Boy wrecked the idea of VR as a home entertainment system and all three console manufacturers have pushed the envelope as far as motion control. It’s easy to believe John Carmack when he calls this the most impressive tech demo he’s ever seen, but the technical issues aren’t major barriers to adoption. The human factors are going to be considerably harder to suss out.

Like 3D movies, VR makes a lot of people sick. Studies on 3D viewing, meanwhile, have demonstrated that there are marked gaps between how well people can see the effect.

As the author points out, people in the “3D Blind” group don’t actually see life as a flat plane. What that means is that they don’t respond to the relatively small number of binocular cues that 3D games and movies rely on to make the effect work. That’s always been a fundamental problem for content creators. The audio/video standards that catch on and succeed are those that balance cost, quality, and universal appeal. When movies went color, everybody noticed. When TVs jumped from 480i to 720p, everyone could see it, especially on larger screens.

3D and VR offer improvements a significant number of people can’t notice. Rendering a game in 3D takes considerably more horsepower than 2D, which means the types of environments you can use are restricted. It’s entirely possible that the visibility of the 3D effect and the accompanying motion sickness can be minimized by scene composition, movement speed, and camera angles — but again, all of that requires research and broad testing across a range of people previously identified as being 3D sensitive or not.

Last but not least, there’s the barfing issue.

Welcome to Nausea 101

We think of motion sickness and nausea as near synonyms because, for most people, the symptoms go hand in hand. If you stop and think about it a moment, you’ll realize just how odd that is. Farting doesn’t make your ears hurt, loud noises don’t make you itchy, and unexpected bright light doesn’t fill your mouth with the taste of pennies — so why does dizziness make you want to barf?

Motion sickness is caused by a disagreement between your vestibular nervous system and your eyeballs. The vestibular system is responsible for maintaining your balance and spatial orientation. Normally it functions on autopilot, with no need for conscious adjustment on your part. That’s perfectly fine, until the brain starts receiving contradictory information on what your body is actually doing at any given point in time.

Getting drunk also screws with your vestibular system, which is why your stairs look like this after a few too many rounds

The reason many people can’t read or watch a video in the car is that focusing in on the page or screen tells your body that it’s perfectly stable and unmoving. Your vestibular system, however, still senses the movement and vibration of the vehicle. This creates cognitive dissonance. Scientists believe that the nausea we feel as a result is an evolutionary adaptation to eating bad or toxic food. If one system is reporting movement and the other isn’t, it’s time to pull the big Reverse lever and send your dinner back.

Movies and car travel can make people sick. Scientific studies have shown that 3D movies are even more troublesome. Virtual reality headsets are even worse, for one simple reason: In a car, you can put your book/phone down and look out the window to synchronize your eyeballs and your inner ear. In a movie theater, you can close your eyes or turn away from the screen for a minute or two. In a VR headset, your ability to lock in on environmental cues is gone. The only way to resynchronize is to remove the helmet altogether, which largely negates the point of owning it.

Since these problems are caused by disagreements between the visual and vestibular systems, it seems logical to think that movement simulators would solve the problem. There are various high-end research labs and military facilities that incorporate such equipment via hard-mounted cabins for flight simulation or harnesses and omnidirectional treadmills for individual use. It’s a great idea — but it doesn’t seem to work. In fact, a number of test subjects have reported that it makes the problem even worse. Scientists aren’t sure if motion/simulation sickness is caused by the simulator directly, or if the vestibular system rebels because the motion simulator doesn’t quite match what the body is expecting. Either way, there’s no clear solution.

You might think this is a joke. You'd be wrong.

Honestly, I think Carmack was spot on when he described this as a great tech demo. It’s a fabulous idea for short uses, particularly since the dizziness and vertigo from 3D and VR take a few minutes to build up. Do I think the Oculus Rift will drive gaming adoption? Not a chance. But that doesn’t mean it’s not important. The true promise of a low-tech, sophisticated VR solution is that it opens doors for research into how the technology can be adapted in the future.

Even today, VR simulations can be used for robotic control, treating certain psychological disorders, and helping the paralyzed regain motor control. Using VR to give patients visual feedback on their stride and balance has proven to be an effective means of treating Parkinson’s and MS. The same visual/vestibular interlink that works at cross purposes to certain simulations can actually be a boon in others. Studies have shown that VR systems can be an effective form of therapy and may motivate paraplegics with spinal chord injuries to participate more precisely because the simulator provides them with an interactive environment. Even today’s primitive VR capabilities may be useful for treating phobias or post-traumatic stress disorder.

All of these research endeavors would benefit from off-the-shelf, easily programmed hardware with robust display capabilities. I don’t think Oculus Rift will change the game industry — but it just might change how the disabled and traumatized interact with the world. If I had to pick one or the other, I know which it would be.

I begin to suspect we live in a world of techno-wimps who get dizzy and faint as soon as you walk towards them carrying a pair of 3d glasses or HMD. It really saddens me how negative many are to this kind of tech. Having played Serious Sam 2nd Encounter some years ago with IO-Systems PC3d @ 800 x 600 for many months I experienced no dizzy-mofo-falling off my seat or any headaches.

Joel Hruska

…Yes. Yes, clearly. Everyone is terrified of visors.

s3ct0r

Some of us remember that first night when we downloaded Doom and installed it on the IPX LANs in the late hours after most had left the office… it changed everything. Why ? One word, immersion. And the first time we started up Quake to hear the stereoscopic sound of those pipe bombs clanking against the walls of a cavernous and flooded room. What made your spine tingle ? Immersion. 3D and Augmented reality are cool but what they achieve at best is to bring the experience to our world whereas ‘good’ VR brings us to another world entirely. Tech is evolving faster now and it’s all becoming cheaper if you ask me which path offers the most immersive experience it’s VR. AR is cool but VR is the holy grail of gaming… IMO.

some_guy_said

I was actually hoping for the oculus rift to be more integrated with the article, rather than a treatise on VR vs biology. Oculus rift seems to be more of a side note.

Perhaps add some technical details that compare and contrast how the oculus rift potentially interacts with the nausea details? And of course, throw in some specs.

Joel Hruska

Yeah, that’d be great. If, you know, any of it was publicly available. The only spec we know is the resolution:1280×800. And the FOV.

Benjamin Rudolf

Sitting on the couch is not really Immersive.
THIS IS REAL IMMERSION –
German students created the TOTAL-AugmentedReality Game
>>>> http://youtu.be/fezJw3iYCpc

s3ct0r

Actually they don’t recommend using the Oculus sitting down. It’s VR so if the in-game character is standing or crouching…. so are you. Once again I know AR is the latest buzz word and much easier to achieve and program than VR. But when it comes to the best experience I’ll take a well programmed low latency VR over AR for a gaming experience every time.

Scandalous Wright

It’s entirely possible that the
visibility of the 3D effect and the accompanying motion sickness can be
minimized by scene composition.

I can’t read in movement. Maybe I have motion sickness. But I have the same nause if I travel in the back seat, just it takes longer then when I’m reading.
Beside that, I enjoy a lot 3D movies and even DIY glasses to play 3D games.
With this said, I can’t agree that motion sickness is the same taht 3D sickness.

khizar_07

Try looking out of the window of a moving train. After a while it will give you eye strain. In a natural environment we don’t see too many fast moving object/scenes!

Wide FOV is good, but it needs at least 1080p 60hz per eye stereo, low latency, and built-in multi-method cross-referenced redundant head-tracking to have any chance in the market. And a long warranty against display death from normal use. Sony and SMD already have HMDs out. It needs to beat them and capture the market. Only when a company can consolidate power will this diffuse field stand a chance.

MR P

Not sure I agree with sickness with VR is due to not being able to lock on to environmental clues, the point of VR is you can do that. I would suggest that the virtual environmental clues arent truely matched with real world environment space. If those were truely matched I would see the lag between the visuals and VNS the only other issue.

I also played with the Real3d, Had the first dual gpu when it was 3dfx, and also bought the first 3d card from diamond. I aslo tried the 3d glasses available back then.

What I believe is needed to be successful is: Hight resolution and at least 120hz per eye. The responsiveness of a mouse, and it’s 3d tracking needs to be as lag free as well! That’s all i want from a 3d headset is those items, and I believe I will be happy!. I have always thought that would be the most awesome thing.